Former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit testified Monday that police questioning of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Case 1000 went beyond the warning given at the outset, and that the warning in Case 2000 did not match the suspicions being investigated.
His testimony at the Jerusalem District Court came as Netanyahu’s defense continued to challenge the scope and timing of his investigation approvals. The judges also pressed Mandelblit on when he authorized questioning Netanyahu as a suspect in Case 2000, and whether an earlier decision he recalled had been documented.
Mandelblit, who authorized the investigations and later approved the indictment, was called as a defense witness. His questioning by Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, has focused on what investigators were permitted to examine and what Netanyahu was told about the suspicions against him before being questioned.
Case 1000 concerns expensive gifts Netanyahu allegedly received from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer, and actions he allegedly took to benefit Milchan. Hadad argued that the warning given to Netanyahu described suspicions concerning the rules on accepting gifts, rather than bribery or fraud and breach of trust.
Mandelblit said that, to the best of his recollection, he had not been involved in drafting the warnings. He agreed that questioning about Netanyahu’s relationship with Milchan went beyond the wording presented to him.
Hadad compares language used in Case 1000, 4000
Hadad also compared the language used in Cases 1000 and 4000. Mandelblit said the wording in Case 4000 was intended to preserve room to determine whether the suspicions amounted to bribery or fraud and breach of trust. Hadad challenged the consistency of that explanation with his earlier answers about Case 1000.
Much of Monday’s hearing concerned the decision to question Netanyahu as a suspect in Case 2000, which centers on discussions with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes about favorable coverage in exchange for steps against rival newspaper Israel Hayom.
Mandelblit said recordings of the conversations established reasonable suspicion against Mozes, while he deliberated over Netanyahu’s position. He recalled testimony from former Netanyahu chief of staff Ari Harow as a development that led him toward approving questioning of the prime minister as a suspect.
The judges pressed him to distinguish that developing assessment from a formal authorization.
Asked about a decision preceding January 5, 2017, Mandelblit said he could not identify documentation of it. He described discussions with other officials rather than a formally recorded decision, and agreed that the actual approval was given on January 5, the day Netanyahu was first questioned in Case 2000.
Mandelblit maintains he intended to have Netanyahu questioned as suspect
Mandelblit nevertheless maintained that he intended to have Netanyahu questioned as a suspect, possibly as early as December 25, 2016, when arrangements for questioning in both cases were discussed. He said final approval may have awaited Mozes’s questioning on January 4.
Hadad argued that Netanyahu had initially been summoned without approval to question him as a suspect in Case 2000. Mandelblit rejected the suggestion that he intended Netanyahu to be questioned merely as a witness.
Mandelblit also agreed that the Case 2000 warning, which referred to requesting and receiving improper benefits from businessmen in connection with his position, did not fit the suspicions in that case.
Monday’s exchanges followed testimony on Sunday in which Mandelblit said he had ordered police to stop wiretapping Netanyahu confidant Natan Eshel. Although investigators had obtained a court warrant, Mandelblit said the operation should have been brought to him for approval beforehand.
Netanyahu’s trial began in May 2020. He faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three cases and a bribery charge in Case 4000, concerning alleged regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for intervention in Walla’s news coverage. He denies wrongdoing.